Kurzon posted:

I had a conversation with a friend who asked me why autocratic countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan tend to be socially conservative. I gave him my answer, but since I am not a political science major, I'd like you guys to critique my hypothesis.

When someone says the word "dictatorship", most people think "rule by one man", but really dictatorships are minority rule. In a dictatorship, the leader only requires the support of a narrow sliver of the population in order to stay in power. It's always nice to have more, but he only REQUIRES a small fraction. By contrast, in democracies, a leader needs the support of a much broader section of the population. Democracies are majority rule, dictatorships are minority rule.

In general, for a dictator, the best minority to appeal to for support is what psychologists call "right-wing authoritarians". Right-wing authoritarians make up between a fifth and a third of the population, depending on how you count; either way, they're a minority, and they're the easiest minority to secure. Right-wing authoritarians, by definition, are people who are submissive to their leaders and highly conformist. Right-wing authoritarians readily give their unquestioning loyalty to their leader provided that leader appeals to their base values. Look up the literature of Bob Altemeyer if you want to know more.

And what is it that right-wing authoritarians fundamentally want? Right-wing authoritarians dislike diversity. They like a society where everybody is the same and interactions with outsiders are minimal. Right-wing authoritarians tend to dislike uncertainty. They also like hierarchy; they like to be the dominant group in society, and they don't much care for egalitarianism. And they tend to be highly fearful of threats caused by people, such as terrorists, criminals, and enemy nations. So a politician can appeal to right-wing authoritarians by opposing immigration, feminism, secularism, and so forth (any that promotes equality and diversity, basically).

Once a politician has their loyalty, that loyalty is very secure. Right-wing authoritarians are very forgiving of corruption, brutality, and other forms of misconduct in their leaders, so long as said leaders keep saying the things they want to hear. Whatever proof you offer of their leader's bad deeds, they will deny, downplay or justify them. The old Roman saying was "Caesar can do no wrong". That means that dictators can use foul tactics to oppress the rest of society, the fraction of society that isn't right-wing authoritarian. He can engage in corruption. Right-wing authoritarians will tell you that they hate corruption, but in practice they don't care if it's their guy doing it. He can curb civil liberties, because right-wing authoritarians tend to not appreciate liberty especially when it's not their own liberties. He can use brutality on political opponents; his RWA supporters will either deny it or justify it, especially if he is exerting brutality on groups that they hate.

So this is an efficient strategy for politicians in autocratic regimes: appeal to the right-wing authoritarian minority and use oppression on everybody else. It doesn't work so well in a democracy because a democratic politican needs a much broader support base to stay in power and there just aren't enough right-wing authoritarians to build a viable coalition. Remember, RWAs make up only a fifth to a third of society, depending on how you count. A democratic leader thus needs to satisfy the desires of the non-authoritarian members of society; the liberals, in other words. And what do liberals tend to want? They want more liberty. They are less tolerant of cruel behavior. They want more equality. They want more honesty and accountability. They want more tolerance. And a democratic leader must give them that.

Giving consideration to liberal demands will, of course, irritate right-wing authoritarian voters, and there is always this struggle in any democracy. Generally, the healthier the democracy, the more influence that liberals have in society. In flawed democracies such as America and Turkey, liberals have more influence than they do in countries like Saudi Arabia but less than in countries like Denmark and Canada.

What do you think of my hypothesis?